Page 190 of 193 FirstFirst ... 90140180188189190191192 ... LastLast
Results 1,891 to 1,900 of 1930

Thread: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

  1. #1891
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,547

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    It's just a ridiculous poll. No attempt to poll democrats, and not even a question on party affiliation in a state with an open primary in a year where democrats had little to vote for. A campaign year where a Republican Senatorial candidate even openly campaigned for Democrats to cross-over, an action that fivethirtyeight and other sources credit with helping him to win. There was no context, no reason at all for a question of this nature to be included other than the leftist pollster's desire to provide some talking points and fuel to the "Republicans are racist" narrative.

    Complete garbage.
    What can I say. One of those polls did ask party affiliation (the 2012 one) - you can see it in the internals. As I recall, democrats split about 85-15 legal/illegal on the question. The 2011 just polled likely GOP primary voters but didn't ask party affiliation.

    Not sure what basis you conclude it's garbage other than you don't like the results. I'd buy the answer is more a reflection of approve/disapprove than an actual desire to bring back laws prohibiting it, but if you've spent any time in Mississippi you know it's not exactly progressive on matters of race.

    The bigger surprise to me is large majorities of republicans don't believe in evolution. That would be a delicate issue to dance around if you're running for office in Mississippi and believed about 99.9% of scientists.
    Last edited by JasperL; 07-06-15 at 06:27 PM.

  2. #1892
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Sorry, I can't take credit for the definition of marriage, just falling back on facts and the truth. You should take the blinders off and try it sometime. Stop trying to put the square peg in the round hole. It doesn't fit now, and never will.

    But it seems that you are a-okay with the SC shutting down the national debate on marriage and imposing the personal opinion of five people on the rest of the country.
    When it is your personal definition of marriage, regardless of where you got it from, then it is not in any way "facts" or "truth".

    Same sex couples fit into marriage just fine. They have been doing so for a while now with pretty much no issues besides some people attempting to stop them from doing so. You don't agree? Please tell me what legal part of marriage same sex couples have significant issues with or that cause issues for society (your or other people's personal objections is not a significant issue). In fact, tell me what personal part of marriage they can't fit that applies to any and all opposite sex couples (besides "they are of the same sex", that would get a "duh" answer, and has nothing to do with how they are in marriage).
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #1893
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by RabidAlpaca View Post
    Incorrect again. Interracial marriage was not part of the definition of marriage, just as gay marriage wasn't until about a week ago. Same arguments, same bigots.
    That's just plain wrong. Marriage was between a man and a woman, no colors specified, just two genders.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  4. #1894
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    When it is your personal definition of marriage, regardless of where you got it from, then it is not in any way "facts" or "truth".

    Same sex couples fit into marriage just fine. They have been doing so for a while now with pretty much no issues besides some people attempting to stop them from doing so. You don't agree? Please tell me what legal part of marriage same sex couples have significant issues with or that cause issues for society (your or other people's personal objections is not a significant issue). In fact, tell me what personal part of marriage they can't fit that applies to any and all opposite sex couples (besides "they are of the same sex", that would get a "duh" answer, and has nothing to do with how they are in marriage).
    LOL! That's like saying "Tell me why this gallon of water does not fit the definition of a gallon of milk, and you can't say it's not milk (duh!)".

    And tell me why they didn't go through proper channels to have the definition of marriage changed, and instead relied on the SC over stepping it's authority and taking power for the federal government that's not granted to it by the Constitution. I don't like it when my government grabs power that we never gave to it.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  5. #1895
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    LOL! That's like saying "Tell me why this gallon of water does not fit the definition of a gallon of milk, and you can't say it's not milk (duh!)".

    And tell me why they didn't go through proper channels to have the definition of marriage changed, and instead relied on the SC over stepping it's authority and taking power for the federal government that's not granted to it by the Constitution. I don't like it when my government grabs power that we never gave to it.
    No, your analogy fails because it deals with concrete subjects, where things are defined in concretes. I can describe a gallon of anything. I can objectively define milk and water. You cannot objectively define marriage unless you do so just by the laws regarding how marriage works, which is still a very subjective definition of marriage, since it is not true for every country or civilization, or even every time of our own country.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  6. #1896
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,075

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    LOL! That's like saying "Tell me why this gallon of water does not fit the definition of a gallon of milk, and you can't say it's not milk (duh!)".

    And tell me why they didn't go through proper channels to have the definition of marriage changed, and instead relied on the SC over stepping it's authority and taking power for the federal government that's not granted to it by the Constitution. I don't like it when my government grabs power that we never gave to it.
    I ... am pretty sure... SCOTUS... is a proper channel... when it comes to... dealing with the constitutionality of marriage bans...
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #1897
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I ... am pretty sure... SCOTUS... is a proper channel... when it comes to... dealing with the constitutionality of marriage bans...
    Okay, I see you don't understand how it works. In short, the SC should have just said that it's not a federal issue and sent it back to the States. Since gay marriage is so popular, as claimed in this thread, there should have been no problem getting it passed in most every State. No need for the SC to get involved.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  8. #1898
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    Okay, I see you don't understand how it works. In short, the SC should have just said that it's not a federal issue and sent it back to the States. Since gay marriage is so popular, as claimed in this thread, there should have been no problem getting it passed in most every State. No need for the SC to get involved.
    No, they shouldn't have. They did the right thing. The rights of individual US citizens were being oppressed by the states, people were being prevented from getting married due to their relatives sexes by the states. That is very much an issue for the SCOTUS to resolve, to decide if this is true or not, if they really should have the right to marry, to equal protection of the laws pertaining to marriage. The states made their arguments, and failed to show that those restrictions furthered any state interest.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #1899
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,144

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    No, they shouldn't have. They did the right thing. The rights of individual US citizens were being oppressed by the states, people were being prevented from getting married due to their relatives sexes by the states. That is very much an issue for the SCOTUS to resolve, to decide if this is true or not, if they really should have the right to marry, to equal protection of the laws pertaining to marriage. The states made their arguments, and failed to show that those restrictions furthered any state interest.
    No rights were being "oppressed". But, I'm not interested in that, or the lack there of. The serious problem is that they knew that they had four members of the Court that they could count on to not do their job, not respect what the Constitution, not even look at the Constitution. They knew that the four liberals would decide in their favor first, and then make up some way (though unconvincing and inaccurate) to justify what they had done.
    That is dangerous.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  10. #1900
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 06:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,923

    Re: Breaking: US S.Ct. Rules Same Sex Marriage Constitutionally Protected[W:320]

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    No rights were being "oppressed". But, I'm not interested in that, or the lack there of. The serious problem is that they knew that they had four members of the Court that they could count on to not do their job, not respect what the Constitution, not even look at the Constitution. They knew that the four liberals would decide in their favor first, and then make up some way (though unconvincing and inaccurate) to justify what they had done.
    That is dangerous.
    What you mean is that you knew there were at least 4 members of the Court that do not agree with your personal interpretation of the Constitution. Just as most of us knew that at least two/three of the Justices had an interpretation of the Constitution that matched yours, which was extremely limited because they support states' rights over individual rights.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •